Skip to main content

Quote for discussion

Even though they're soldiers and know killing is part of their responsibility and duty, a number of them come to me very bothered about it…Our challenge is to assure them that what they are doing is morally acceptable from a Christian perspective and a patriotic one.

Major Eric Albertson, a Roman Catholic Chaplain in Iraq The Times, 8 Dec 2004, p.37

Comments

anticant said…
It's a challenge the Roman Catholic Church has been remarkably successful in meeting down the ages! See:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Double-Cross-Code-Catholic-Church/dp/0955413303/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1255007449&sr=1-5
October 8, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Mike said…
It would be a challenge, indeed, for the chaplain to explain why killing is morally acceptable from a Christian perspective. It sounds to me like he may have some soul-searching of his own to do.
October 8, 2009 at 1:15 PM
anticant said…
Ah, but you see they invented the doctrine of the 'Just War' - which in former times included wiping out all heretics in the name of "Gentle Jesus" - the Christian equivalent of Jihad.
October 8, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Peter said…
What's to discuss?

It's uncontroversial that sometimes it's morally OK to kill (insert your favourite hypothetical about genocide prevention here). And he's a Christian, so he quite rightly thinks that that particular moral judgement is alright by Christianity's books.
October 10, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Billy said…
Well, the bible does give mixed messages. The book of Joshua says it's alright to kill children if god says so. One would expect an "omnipotent" "moral" god to be a clear communicator.
October 22, 2009 at 2:18 PM
Giford said…
I was more concerned by this quote from Gen Sir Richard Dannatt, head of the UK Army:

"In my business, asking people to risk their lives is part of the job, but doing so without giving them the chance to understand that there is a life after death is something of a betrayal"

Gif
October 28, 2009 at 1:09 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Evil God Challenge and the "classical" theist's response

On another blog, FideCogitActio, some theists of a "classical" stripe (that's to say, like Brian Davies, Edward Feser) are criticisng the Evil God Challenge (or I suppose, trying to show how it can be met, or sidestepped). The main post includes this: In book I, chapter 39 , Aquinas argues that “there cannot be evil in God” (in Deo non potest esse malum). Atheists like Law must face the fact that, if the words are to retain any sense, “God” simply cannot be “evil”. As my comments in the thread at Feser’s blog aimed to show, despite how much he mocks “the privation theory of evil,” Law himself cannot escape its logic: his entire argument requires that the world ought to appear less evil if it is to be taken as evidence of a good God. Even though he spurns the idea that evil is a privation of good, his account of an evil world is parasitic on a good ideal; this is no surprise, though, since all evil is parasitic on good ( SCG I, 11 ). Based on the conclusions of se...
446 comments
Read more

EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS

(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
159 comments
Read more

Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism refuted

Here's my central criticism of Plantinga's Evolutionary Argument Against Naturalism (EAAN). It's novel and was published in Analysis last year. Here's the gist. Plantinga argues that if naturalism and evolution are true, then semantic epiphenomenalism is very probably true - that's to say, the content of our beliefs does not causally impinge on our behaviour. And if semantic properties such as having such-and-such content or being true cannot causally impinge on behaviour, then they cannot be selected for by unguided evolution. Plantinga's argument requires, crucially, that there be no conceptual links between belief content and behaviour of a sort that it's actually very plausible to suppose exist (note that to suppose there are such conceptual links is not necessarily to suppose that content can be exhaustively captured in terms of behaviour or functional role, etc. in the way logical behaviourists or functionalists suppose). It turns o...
151 comments
Read more